Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2 • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#721

Post by pwinnski » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 4:25 PM UTC

crx087 wrote: post #687

pwinnski wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Austin's airport makes it difficult to see that city working for Amazon. I hope it goes anywhere but Dallas! I live in Dallas.

What's wrong with ABIA? It's a reclaimed airforce base with new facilities and better service ratings than LAX or JFK.

Nothing's particularly wrong with it. I'm just not sure it's major enough to support Amazon.

I mean, I definitely hope it is, because Dallas doesn't need Amazon setting up shop here. But Chicago and Dallas seem like they have more infrastructure to support a major project like Amazon's HQ2.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#722

Post by ashelmire » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #577

kfcm wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's incorrect about the Constitution. While it does not lay down specifics, it does give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Known as the Commerce Clause, it's Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

The Commerce Clause precludes states from erecting trade barriers between each other. While Congress could in theory do so, (1) it's never to my knowledge ever used its Commerce Clause powers in that way, and (2) provisions like the Privileges and Immunities Clause creates independent prohibitions on erecting barriers between states.

Yet... alcohol can not be freely moved between states. There are clearly cases where interstate trade is prohibited.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#723

Post by ashelmire » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

fancyfacebook wrote: post #352

ashelmire wrote: post #340

Part of me would love to have a big tech / infrastructure company like Amazon in Philly. But I take serious issue with the idea of the city paying millions or billions to bring them here, promising years of tax breaks (a free ride), and the tightening of an already very tight real estate and rental market. I don't think my fellow Philadelphians should have to pay to bring a company here that's just going to hire peop…

Creating jobs that don't exist for people who currently aren't residents (or don't yet exist) is the very definition of economic progress. If you don't want that then you just want nothing but the status the status quo unchanged forever. You can't have it both ways.

I can absolutely expect a company not to need massive tax breaks to come to my city, and to have a plan for housing. If Amazon were to come to the Northeast part of the city and with a plan for development of housing and supporting services, that would be great. But in all likelihood, they will just crowd our downtown and popular areas even further.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#724

Post by williamsmj » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #489

williamsmj wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Atlanta, Raleigh and Dallas are all in states whose statewide electorate makes them a governor's veto away from passing "religious freedom" laws that would make hiring difficult. Maybe it would be good for Atlanta, but I don't think Amazon would risk it.

I thought "religious freedom" laws made it so the employer could legally refuse to hire, say, homosexuals. That probably won't pose a risk to Amazon, the hiring company. Are you thinking the second order effects would come into play, like spouses not being able to find work? Or am I wrong about the definition of rf laws?

Imagine if a state had a law making it legal to discriminate against women. You might argue that would give the hiring company valuable hiring and firing flexibility. But it's probably obvious that, aside from the ethical issue, it would be bad for business to seek such jurisdictions out. Skilled workers (both women and men) wouldn't want to work there, and the PR impact would be negative.

Many corporations have been extremely vocal in their opposition to these laws in lobbying. They're bad for business because they make hiring harder, and it's bad PR.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#725

Post by bluetwo » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

BatFastard wrote: post #603

bluetwo wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see Philly land it but let's be honest: They are going to put it in a better run city with less inherent corruption.

ok, using corruption as a premise, lets see who that eliminates. New York Chicago Newark Philadelphia Washington DC for sure Miami LA?

I agree with your assessment, yes.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#726

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 5:05 PM UTC

ashelmire wrote: post #722

rayiner wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Commerce Clause precludes states from erecting trade barriers between each other. While Congress could in theory do so, (1) it's never to my knowledge ever used its Commerce Clause powers in that way, and (2) provisions like the Privileges and Immunities Clause creates independent prohibitions on erecting barriers between states.

Yet... alcohol can not be freely moved between states. There are clearly cases where interstate trade is prohibited.

There is a narrow exception for public health, e.g. plant quarantine laws. But the usual tools countries use: tariffs, immigration controls, capital controls, etc., are unavailable.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#727

Post by mschout » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

jrnichols wrote: post #694

unexpected wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Texas; I live in Dallas. I think Dallas is a much stronger option than Austin. Building a grocery store is far different than building a corporate campus. The interesting thing is that Amazon already has a presence in a lot of these cities, so they're intimately familiar with the day to day workings. There's not going to be any "sugar coating" by city officials. 1) Austin - Whole Foods 2) Newark - Audible 3)…

I wonder if they meant the city of Dallas itself. I'm not really sure where they'd even put a large HQ campus. Frisco/Plano/etc? absolutely. But in the City of Dallas proper? Hmmm.

Valley View Mall is one option that was proposed. There are plenty of spots.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#728

Post by astrodust » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

prklmn wrote: post #596

astrodust wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody cares about HQ2 outside of certain tech circles. My point is people care more about where their cars are made, and they don't even really care about that.

If nobody cares about HQ2, then why is it all over the news? You're underestimating it's reach. Even if people wouldn't normally care, they will care now because of the publicity and bidding process that has taken place. People in cities who do not win will be upset when they lose, and people everywhere, including places that were never in the running, will be upset if they put the office in Canada. You must not have…

Oh, you think people read the news. You're overestimating how much that matters.

This will blow over in months and be totally forgotten.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#729

Post by astrodust » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #639

prklmn wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is valid, however no car factory built recently has garnered a fraction of the publicity/public interest that HQ2 has. What people don't know can't hurt them.

Part of me says that if they wanted to set up shop in Toronto they would have just done it, and not gone out of their way to attract attention like they have. But on the other hand, if they want to run a PR campaign on the basis of "we seriously considered many US cities, and Toronto was a better option", they're certainly putting in the groundwork for that.

It's probably just going through their "due diligence" so they can pull the pin on a non-US but "North American" location. If they want to hire the best in the world it's easier to get visas for working in Toronto, and the path to citizenship is pretty straightforward.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#730

Post by astrodust » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 6:02 PM UTC

southphillyman wrote: post #594

astrodust wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody cares about HQ2 outside of certain tech circles. My point is people care more about where their cars are made, and they don't even really care about that.

This is false. This whole process has been huge news. It's front page on sites like Washington Post, Philly.com, and the IndyStar and I've just checked multiple non tech forums where it's one of the busiest topics today.

A single day of news is not "news". Everyone's already moved on to the US government shutdown and more nonsense about emails and ISIS.